Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Rudin Theorem 1.20 (b)

  1. Jul 15, 2012 #1
    I understand the proof except for the following:

    Suppose that -m2 < nx < m1 for positive integers m1, m2, n, and real number x.

    Then there is an integer m with -m2 ≤ m ≤ m1 such that m-1 ≤ nx < m.

    It definitely sounds reasonable, but it seems like a big jump in logic.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2012 #2

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Let m be the least integer that is strictly greater than nx. It is a triviality to verify that this integer has the desired properties.
     
  4. Mar 23, 2013 #3
    Simple proof

    Hi there,
    I have attached a simple demonstration of the bit you are asking.
    Let me know if it is clear now.
    I hope it helps
     

    Attached Files:

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Rudin Theorem 1.20 (b)
  1. Rudin Theorem 3.23 (Replies: 1)

  2. Rudin theorem 3.44 (Replies: 2)

  3. Rudin Theorem 2.41 (Replies: 5)

  4. Rudin's Theorem 2.27 (Replies: 11)

Loading...